science vs religion?

[Repox]

You said, and i quote again "I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

To propose : put forward.

Correct you are not required, but you made a statement, now refusing to provide proof of your claim only makes it look like your claim was lie. Was it a lie?

Oh, I see, not able to make me submit with insults and stupid remarks, you call me a liar. Give it up.

 

[`mud]

And then one finds an olive amongst the lettuce !
and cukes for all !

 

[ChristineM]

Of course it is a lie. He doesn't know enough mathematics and statistics to actually do anything like that. He is just another that has a vague intuition and wants someone else to do the hard work while he takes credit *if* anything works out out and claims a conspiracy if it doesn't. Such are a dime a dozen in some areas.

Now all we need is a little honesty from him, think its gobg to happen?

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I see, not able to make me submit with insults and stupid remarks, you call me a liar. Give it up.

I have not insulted you, i have been truthful about your posts, seems you are incapable of the same. I am not surprised of course, you are too embarrassed to own up to your posts misrepresentations

 

[Polymath257]

Now all we need is a little honesty from him, think its gobg to happen?

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I see, not able to make me submit with insults and stupid remarks, you call me a liar. Give it up.

Here is an exercise for you brain deficiency problem. Look up the meaning of the words "propose" and "theory." If you are honest you will have to admit I used them correctly.

Ha, ha, the deliberate ignorance is astounding, you actually quoted my post in which provided the dictionary definition of "to propose" (your word) by telling me to look up the meanibf of the word. And you claim i insult you. Wow.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not holding my breath.

Me nether, hes digging in, but i do t expect honesty from one such...

 

[Repox]

It seems no one can read what I wrote. Here it is again from Post # 198 on this thread.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

 

[ChristineM]

It seems no one can read what I wrote. Here it is again from Post # 198 on this thread.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

And in post 38 you wrote

"I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

Which i have quoted repeatedly, partially and in whole, this is the post i am querying in which you made untrue claims

Moving goalposts is not going to make it go away like magic

 

[Repox]

And in post 38 you wrote

"I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical."

Which i have quoted repeatedly, partially and in whole, this is the post i am querying in which you made untrue claims

Moving goalposts is not going to make it go away like magic

I didn't change the subject. Science is mathematical! How can I make untrue statements when you don't understand what I post? You are dishonest, you make up accusations unrelated to my postings.

There is a need for people on this forum to read a book, take a class, learn something. The big problem is people lack knowledge or understanding. I'll bet no one understands my statement which has generated so much acrimony. I'll post it again. "This discussion is on my terms, about what I have posted, not stupid nonsense which pleases atheists and idiots."

Post # 198 on this thread.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

I'll bet you don't understand a word! You are the worst of the lot. You make up a lot of nonsense.

This is a waste of time. I really have better things to do. I gain nothing from these senseless exchanges.

 

[Milton Platt]

God is the eternal force that created everything. It's simple. What was before everything? What connects everything? God.

You are still presupposing. Demonstrate that this is true.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't change the subject. Science is mathematical! How can I make untrue statements when you don't understand what I post? You are dishonest, you make up accusations unrelated to my postings.

There is a need for people on this forum to read a book, take a class, learn something. The big problem is people lack knowledge or understanding. I'll bet no one understands my statement which has generated so much acrimony. I'll post it again. "This discussion is on my terms, about what I have posted, not stupid nonsense which pleases atheists and idiots."

Post # 198 on this thread.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

I'll bet you don't understand a word! You are the worst of the lot. You make up a lot of nonsense.

This is a waste of time. I really have better things to do. I gain nothing from these senseless exchanges.

You may waffle with as much incredulity as you like. I quoted your post, and provided definition of the word..

No agrimony, just questioning your bold statement. have you ever considered why people questioned it? No because you always think you are right eh?

And i will tell you again, i don't care about you moving the goalposts after the event in an attempt to fireproof yourself and look all angelic so you can earn extra god points in your own mind. I questioned post #38 which, after some incresdulity and waffle about word definitions (which btw proved my point) you appear unwilling to address.

You also seem to make the same mistake many fundimental religious seem to make, that i am a dumb blonde, i am afraid your hyperbole and guesswork is precisely that, hyperbole and guesswork designed to cover your own shame. If you want to continue trying to insult my intelligence with guesses then it simp!y shows the depths of Christianity you will stoop to for you to hide behind.

Why are you complaining the discussion is not benefitting you. You made the original statement, why is lying in your post then lying about it when questioned not benefitting you. From it you should realise that people will no longer accept blind nonsense, and will question unfounded claims about your personal faith. People should learn from their errors.

P.s. i read your post 198, it makes some wild leaps of faith and assumptions you need to be valid you make your point but you appear to know little of the early universe, i suggest taking a few years in cosmology related subjects at uni so you can sort out your thinking on the subject.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't change the subject. Science is mathematical! How can I make untrue statements when you don't understand what I post? You are dishonest, you make up accusations unrelated to my postings.

There is a need for people on this forum to read a book, take a class, learn something. The big problem is people lack knowledge or understanding. I'll bet no one understands my statement which has generated so much acrimony. I'll post it again. "This discussion is on my terms, about what I have posted, not stupid nonsense which pleases atheists and idiots."

No, this is a public forum that you do not control. The discussion is open to all.

Post # 198 on this thread.

OK, let's.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB.

Already you show your ignorance of the subject. The decoupling of light and matter at 380,000 was NOT when the elements formed. The elements mostly formed in the first few *minutes*, when the temperatures and densities were high enough for fusion reactions to occur. What happened at about 380,000 years is that the universe had cooled enough to allow light to move freely.

Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe?

OK, so once again you admit to complete ignorance of the subject. 'There must be some way of isolating key variables'???? What, precisely, do you think those key variables are? Which, specific subatomic particles? What sort of model are you looking for? Do you know any of the models that *are* used? What are their strengths and deficiencies for your program? Why would you think that *any* model would 'predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe'??? Exactly how would an 'interactive model' make such a prediction? Again, have you done *any* actual formulation of a model or are you just speaking out of your backside with no actual understanding of what is involved (rhetorical question)?

Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line

.

Ooooo, a matrix! That would solve *everything*!! I bet nobody has ever thought that matrices might be useful here.

And the task is to isolate key variables? Wow! That is *such* a HUGE insight! Put you in line for a Nobel Prize! Amazing!

I'll bet you don't understand a word! You are the worst of the lot. You make up a lot of nonsense.

I can only say you must be looking in a mirror. You *clearly* don't know the *first* thing about this subject. You have a few very vague ideas, but mostly they are nonsense.

This is a waste of time. I really have better things to do. I gain nothing from these senseless exchanges.

Yes, I am sure you were hoping for some ego strokes and didn't get them, so you want to leave with some shred of dignity.

Too late.

 

[ChristineM]

No, this is a public forum that you do not control. The discussion is open to all.



OK, let's.


Already you show your ignorance of the subject. The decoupling of light and matter at 380,000 was NOT when the elements formed. The elements mostly formed in the first few *minutes*, when the temperatures and densities were high enough for fusion reactions to occur. What happened at about 380,000 years is that the universe had cooled enough to allow light to move freely.


OK, so once again you admit to complete ignorance of the subject. 'There must be some way of isolating key variables'???? What, precisely, do you think those key variables are? Which, specific subatomic particles? What sort of model are you looking for? Do you know any of the models that *are* used? What are their strengths and deficiencies for your program? Why would you think that *any* model would 'predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe'??? Exactly how would an 'interactive model' make such a prediction? Again, have you done *any* actual formulation of a model or are you just speaking out of your backside with no actual understanding of what is involved (rhetorical question)?



Ooooo, a matrix! That would solve *everything*!! I bet nobody has ever thought that matrices might be useful here.

And the task is to isolate key variables? Wow! That is *such* a HUGE insight! Put you in line for a Nobel Prize! Amazing!


I can only say you must be looking in a mirror. You *clearly* don't know the *first* thing about this subject. You have a few very vague ideas, but mostly they are nonsense.


Yes, I am sure you were hoping for some ego strokes and didn't get them, so you want to leave with some shred of dignity.

Too late.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[syo]

You are still presupposing. Demonstrate that this is true.

you have object A and object B. these two objects have a chronical start (birth) and a chronical end (death). something must have started their births. something that always exists (god). also, these two objects are related somehow, so they have a same source (god).

 

[Polymath257]

you have object A and object B. these two objects have a chronical start (birth) and a chronical end (death). something must have started their births.

Why do you assume that?

something that always exists (god).

And why do you assume any cause must have always existed?

also, these two objects are related somehow, so they have a same source (god).

Does not follow, now does it?

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***​

It seems that some folks are forgetting about these things right here:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.​

 

[syo]

Why do you assume that?


And why do you assume any cause must have always existed?



Does not follow, now does it?

isn't it logical?

 

[`mud]

I think they have found zero !

 

[Repox]

(

You may waffle with as much incredulity as you like. I quoted your post, and provided definition of the word..

No agrimony, just questioning your bold statement. have you ever considered why people questioned it? No because you always think you are right eh?

And i will tell you again, i don't care about you moving the goalposts after the event in an attempt to fireproof yourself and look all angelic so you can earn extra god points in your own mind. I questioned post #38 which, after some incresdulity and waffle about word definitions (which btw proved my point) you appear unwilling to address.

You also seem to make the same mistake many fundimental religious seem to make, that i am a dumb blonde, i am afraid your hyperbole and guesswork is precisely that, hyperbole and guesswork designed to cover your own shame. If you want to continue trying to insult my intelligence with guesses then it simp!y shows the depths of Christianity you will stoop to for you to hide behind.

Why are you complaining the discussion is not benefitting you. You made the original statement, why is lying in your post then lying about it when questioned not benefitting you. From it you should realise that people will no longer accept blind nonsense, and will question unfounded claims about your personal faith. People should learn from their errors.

P.s. i read your post 198, it makes some wild leaps of faith and assumptions you need to be valid you make your point but you appear to know little of the early universe, i suggest taking a few years in cosmology related subjects at uni so you can sort out your thinking on the subject.

A lot of talk about nothing.

Again, read my statement (Post #198) which began the atheist rant. Explain its meaning. You can't! You know nothing about the topic. What a joke, you tell me I don't know anything about cosmology when you know nothing. Out of ignorance and folly you and other atheists have jumped on the Ant-Believer bandwagon and have accomplish nothing but to irritate me. Have a nice day, ha. ha.